PREVIOUS DENTAL TREATMENT

2. PREVIOUS DENTAL TREATMENT TreatmentPlanning 2003 • Cause-relatedperiodontaltreatment. • Implant-supported full bridge in upper jaw. • Cross-arch bridge on lower teeth.

3. PREVIOUS DENTAL TREATMENT Referral to the Brånemark Clinic 2004

4. 1-year Post-treatment Radiographs

5. Initial Examination 13.03.2008

6. Initial Radiographs Feb 2008

7. Front • 13-23 • Front picture • 43-33 • Front Xray

8. Right • Right picture • Right Xray

9. Left picture Left

11. Diagnosis: Oral lichen planus

12. Treatment • The first 14 days; Clobetasol gel; In the morning and the evening during the first 14 days. 5 ml after tooth-brushing. Risk for Candida; Medication should be combined together with Mycostatin mixture, 5ml, 2 times a day. • The following 15 days: Clobetasol gel; once a day every morning, 5 ml after tooth-brushing. • And the final 14 days: Clobetasol gel; once every second day, 5 ml after tooth-brushing.

13. Here put occlusal Occlusal • Here occlusal lower

17. Peri-implant Surgery Upper Jaw Reshaping of Prosthesis September 2008

18. Surgery Upper Jaw

19. Surgery Upper Jaw

20. Surgery Upper Jaw

21. Reshaping of prosthesis at the laboratory

22. 1 month post-surgery

23. Reexamination5 months post-surgery

24. Reexamination5 months post-surgery

25. Initial Examination 13.03.2008 Reexamination 02.02.2009

28. Fracture 21 09.07.2009 Removal of the prosthesis and repair at the laboratory

29. Final Examination19 months after initial examination

30. Initial Examination 13.03.2008 Reexamination 02.02.2009 Final Examination 05.10.2009

31. Final Examination19 months after initial examination

33. Further supportive treatment • The patient will remain in our clinic for supportive periodontal therapy and regular controls for the time being (every 2nd month).

34. Concluding Remarks

35. Concluding Remarks • Implant therapy in the upper jaw and cross-arch bridge in the lower jaw was performed at the Brånemark clinic in 2004. The patient was referred to us in 2008 because of peri-implantitis.

36. Concluding Remarks • Implant therapy in the upper jaw and cross-arch bridge in the lower jaw was performed at the Brånemark clinic in 2004. The patient was referred to us in 2008 because of peri-implantitis. • The patient is undergoing treatment of oral lichen planus at the department of oral medicine.

37. Concluding Remarks • Implant therapy in the upper jaw and cross-arch bridge in the lower jaw was performed at the Brånemark clinic in 2004. The patient was referred to us in 2008 because of peri-implantitis. • The patient is undergoing treatment of oral lichen planus at the department of oral medicine. • At the reexamination, it was noted that 12 was fractured. The patient did not mention any subjective concerns until 21 also fractured.

38. Concluding Remarks • Implant therapy in the upper jaw and cross-arch bridge in the lower jaw was performed at the Brånemark clinic in 2004. The patient was referred to us in 2008 because of peri-implantitis. • The patient is undergoing treatment of oral lichen planus at the department of oral medicine. • At the reexamination, it was noted that 12 was fractured. The patient did not mention any subjective concerns until 21 also fractured. • The patient will be kept in our clinic for supportive periodontal therapy, aiming at keeping the plaque control at as high a level as possible and thus maintaining the result of the treatment. Wechoseshortintervallsof 2 monthsbetweenrecallappointmentsforthefirstyear.

39. Concluding Remarks • Implant therapy in the upper jaw and cross-arch bridge in the lower jaw was performed at the Brånemark clinic in 2004. The patient was referred to us in 2008 because of peri-implantitis. • The patient is undergoing treatment of oral lichen planus at the department of oral medicine. • At the reexamination, it was noted that 12 was fractured. The patient did not mention any subjective concerns until 21 also fractured. • The patient will be kept in our clinic for supportive periodontal therapy, aiming at keeping the plaque control at as high a level as possible and thus maintaining the result of the treatment. Wechoseshortintervallsof 2 monthsbetweenrecallappointmentsforthefirstyear. • The general prognosis might be viewed as good, but it is very much related to the patient’s future compliance. Tooth 35 is still considered questionable.

41. Front Photo

42. Front Rx

43. Right Photo

44. Right Rx

45. Left Photo

46. Left Rx